I always agree with what Christopher Hitchens said (from what little I've seen of him - I haven't even read his books!) but I just find his targets unusual choices. Bill Clinton - fair enough, I guess.. But Mother Theresa, Princess Diana fans? I find those odd choices...

In contrast, Richard Dawkins seems much more empathetic as a whole... and he has the patience of a saint (ironic choice of phrase perhaps).

I am a Hindu but consider myself an agnostic, people here in India have a very love-hate kind of relationship with science. Here people believe in what is taught to them in school in science and everything like evolution and survival of the fittest but also simultaneously believe whatever is preached in our temples. I find this hypocrisy unnerving and odd. It feels as if people here are un-opinionated.Also I never understood why churches condemn evolution, I have never visited a church and I don't know many people who are Christians in my personal life, I am only saying this because I see this debate in lot of forums.

I always agree with what Christopher Hitchens said (from what little I've seen of him - I haven't even read his books!) but I just find his targets unusual choices. Bill Clinton - fair enough, I guess.. But Mother Theresa, Princess Diana fans? I find those odd choices...

In contrast, Richard Dawkins seems much more empathetic as a whole... and he has the patience of a saint (ironic choice of phrase perhaps).

Christopher Hitchens based his work not solely around debunking religion but also about debunking the establishments and politics that support it.

That means casting light on politicians, diplomats (he hated Kissinger) and figures of popular culture; where their public images and private characters were very different - mirroring that the public face of religion is one thing but the practical application of religion is something very different.

He was infinitely intelligent. Dawkins is too, but Hitchens was in a class of his own - debunking the very notion that one has to have "patience" when debating something that he considered to be completely irrational.

If you love debates you might like this one if you haven't already seen it.

It's Hitchens and Stephen Fry debating Ann Widdecombe (a UK politician) and a Catholic Archbishop on whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good or evil in the world. They take a poll from the audience at the beginning and the end.

Ann Widdecombe is a religious extremist, and now former ultra right wing politician.

She either sued or threatened to sue anyone who mentioned her sex life, even as a joke. Because of this, many people speculate that she is a self loathing lesbian or possibly a secret hypocrite practicing lesbian, as we've seen with so many conservative politicos who publicly claim to hate equality for GLBTIs. .

im afraid your mother and others who do not believe in evolution are more religious and the indoctrination is strong in them. evolution goes against the very teachings of the 3 major Abrahamic faiths namely- Judaism, Islam, and Christianity which declares that god created every creature (man included) in a matter of days and that his creations are the same as it was in the beginning as opposed to scientific theory- and probable proof- that all creatures evolved from simple life forms to the more complex and adapted species we see today which is more logical if we think of it in our modern time.

sadly, although if by now we have been educated and knowledgeable about science, most people will abandon and turn away from the theory of evolution because of faith. mostly because it invalidates the religious teaching they/we grew up with and also, secretly, we/they dont want to believe we came from monkeys which is both terrifying and embarrassing at the same time.

the difference is- science is unraveling and revealing truths that evolution is real and verifiable. religion still cannot provide any proof of a 7 day creation.

dont fret if you cant make them understand evolution. just smile, lest you upset them.

I personally have always found evolution to make sense. I get that some do not believe in it 100% but the core idea makes sense and is why we have different species of very similar animals due to gradualism and geographic isolation. I know the largest monotheistic religions do not easily agree with it, but the logic and evidence support it.

I think the issue with people not believing in evolution boils down to people not fully understanding the concept of evolution. There's this huge misconception that evolution is linear, thanks to that infamous one where an ape becomes a man through a successive line of creatures with increasingly suitable postures. However, at its core, evolutionary branches actually resemble those found in a bush rather than those found on a tree.

Understanding the concept of evolution requires an open mind, which unsurprisingly is few and far between given our collective histories with religion, and the power it holds over the intellectually lazy.

I love Richard Dawkins and his naive marvel at obtuse people's statements.Love also Christopher Hitchens. How can you not feel all warm and fuzzy inside when he delivered one of his famous Hitchslaps.

As a scientist, I cannot but embrace evolution. And not just embrace but, as anything in science, reason about it, challenge it, and then embrace it.

I'm an agnosic atheist, by the way. Although I've been brought up a catholic and attended catholic schools, I just had to give up the delusion of religion: it just doesnt stand the challenge of reasoning.

my dear Anthares.. how one can be agnostic atheist? that's like saying I'm dead and alive... you'r either agnostic or atheist.Besides being a scientist and believing in god is perfectly ok..why? because science never prove god exist or doesn't exist.Concerning evolution, it's neither proof or refutation of the existence of some god. Evolution is called theory of evolution, as it can't be proved ( some missing linked can't be found.. so either you are a real scientist and pragmatic and therefore you can't accept a theory on basis that ' it's most likely', either you are a tiny little so called 'scientist' that is actually an atheist who is in fact as dumb as a religious guy because your demonstration is based on "beliefs" and not facts). Even if the theory of evolution is truth that doesn't elude the real big point : who made the big bang and for what reason? science can not give any answer to that and will probably never be able to. Hence there is no choice between being a scientist and still believing in god or supra intelligence. Only atheists who happen to be scientist can argue that, because their thinking is as bias as the one from fanatic religious creeps.

Firstly I think there is but one God, the problem is that Humans have tried to but sense into something that is not seen.Every religion has a base in similar ideas it is the word of Man that has corrupted them.How could there be 20 different Gods, each professing to be the ONE and Only?

Why do we continue to fight about differences instead of embracing the similarities we all have?

Why can't evolution be a part of Gods plans?

He gave us minds to think, not just to follow.

I am living my life my doing the best I can and trying not to impede or hurt others around me, why not stop arguing over topics that we can't control and start worrying about those we can?

Why should the question of "belief" come for the scientific subject of "evolution"? It has to be either proved or disproved. The fact that we still need to believe in evolution means that it has neither been proved nor disproved which makes me indifferent in accepting or rejecting evolution as a natural fact.

As frontlemon implies, some elements of what are considered the theory of evolution are not observable, either in real time or in the fossil record, therefore these require faith just as in any other belief system. Other elements (such as natural selection, which doesn't inherently imply change, or at least not the acquisition of anything fundamentally new. It is *selection* after all) are abundantly observable and hence require no 'belief' as such and are merely factual.

Why some people make the link between evolution and "does god exist"? the subject of the OP is do you believe in creationism.From where I live we see that in the US some people do think creationism is true... while here we think, like most western countries, evolution true or not, doesnt mean God exist or not.. The Pope himself said " evolution is not inconsistent with Creation." meaning , evolution and big bang are just the means of how the universe was made but it doesn't deny the existence of god. That's what catholics think.. Now in the us they are a bit more.. yeah you know.... When we learned evolution, I was all "yeah it's crap, the earth is only 7000 years old" ( I didnt thought that actually but I like to be on the "rebel" side ) so I showed a book called " evolution or creationism " from the jehovah's witness.. it's a funny book made for people from the 3rd and 4th world, so you have funny picture of "heaven on earth" and all the kid's stories to my teacher with funny overly simplistic arguments as to why evolution can't be true and that was fun. so to reply to the OP : I did pretend I was a creationist

For me evolution makes sense and it's so easy to prove it now that we have records from changes in the environment, adaptability in some species and even changes in the human's body and mind. But I think most of the religious people (specially Catholics / Christians) fail to understand the allegories from the bible. They read it as a literal story, as historical fact, when it is, in reality, all a beautiful abstract life lesson, which encompasses the whole of creation and constitution of the universe, but cannot and should not be taken literally.There, if read carefully, one can fin more than one curious -fact-.